(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.03 2015가단3671

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.12.03 2015가단3671

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1.The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged in Gap evidence No. 1 by integrating the purport of the entire pleadings:

On September 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an overall business transfer and takeover agreement with the Defendant and C to acquire all the business and fixtures, etc. at KRW 70,00,000,00, at the main points of “E” located in Kimpo-si D (hereinafter “instant main points”).

(hereinafter “instant transfer contract”). (b)

According to the transfer contract of this case, the transferor shall actively cooperate with the plaintiff in relation to the operation of the main place, and for the next five years, the defendant shall not engage in the same industry within the F zone of Kimpo-si.

C. On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiff paid 54,526,825 won remaining after the settlement of public charges, etc. at the transfer price of KRW 70,000,000 under the instant transfer contract to the Defendant. Around that time, the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant main points from the Defendant.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay damages and damages for delay for the total amount of KRW 30,00,000,000 as damages and damages for delay, as the Plaintiff, inasmuch as he/she opened and operates approximately KRW 1 km away from the main points of this case around the beginning of April 2014, in violation of the prohibition of competition as stipulated in the instant transfer agreement.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is operating the main place in the place where the Plaintiff claims in violation of the prohibition clause of competitive business as stipulated in the instant transfer agreement.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered damages as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion due to the Defendant’s violation of the duty of prohibition of competition, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.11.12 2015가단110555

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.21 2015가합25865

-서울고등법원 2016.02.25 2015나2023527

-서울고등법원 2016.11.02 2016나6042

-수원지방법원 2020.04.22 2018가단25645